LARRY J. PAGE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed the conviction because the appellant failed to raise the issue of a Richardson hearing violation at the trial level, and the error was not fundamental.
The appellant was convicted of grand theft. On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by not conducting a Richardson hearing after the state violated…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Richardson Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
Appellant appeals from his conviction and sentence for grand theft. He contends that the trial judge erred when he failed to conduct a Richardson1 hearing after the state violated a rule of criminal procedure during trial. We find no reversible error and affirm.
It is a cardinal rule that, except in a case of fundamental error, an appellate court will not consider an issue unless it was specifically raised at the trial level as the legal basis for an objection or motion. Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla.1982); Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978); State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1974).
Appellant cites on this appeal the state’s violation of a specific procedural rule and, also for the first time, cites Richardson and the doctrine first enunciated in that case. We find no error of a fundamental nature under the circumstances here. The contention presented orally to the trial judge is not the same as the point appellant now urges as reversible error. Therefore, the trial judge had no opportunity to focus on and consider the issue that appellant now presents to us. We will not consider the point which appellant asserts for the first time here.
We have considered appellant’s other point and find it to be without merit. See Perry v. State, 356 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Pitts v. State, 333 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Johnson v. State, 178 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).
AFFIRMED.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur. . Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Washington v. State, 510 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…ession of more than one concealed firearm at a given time. Except in cases of fundamental error, this court will not consider an issue unless it was specifically raised as the legal basis for an objection or motion at the trial level. Page v. State, 412 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Because appellant did not raise this issue in his motion, we affirm the trial court’s denial, without prejudice to appellant to raise the voluntariness of his plea in a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of…
-
D'Oleo-Valdez v. State, 516 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…deviation from the rule to the trial court’s attention effected a waiver of the contention. Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978); De La Cova v. State, 355 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 831 (Fla.1978); Page v. State, 412 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); 3 Fla.Jur.2d Appellate Review §§ 293, 300-301 (1978). We do not read Graydon v. State, 502 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), to hold otherwise. If we are wrong about this, we think Graydon is wrong. There is no other error. Affi…
-
Price v. State, 553 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…error, we will not consider an issue unless it was specifically raised as the legal basis for the objection in the trial court. Stone v. State, 547 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Washington v. State, 510 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Page v. State, 412 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). In this case, the error, if any, was not fundamental. See Stone. See also Glendening v. State, 536 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1988); Ashford v. State, 274 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1973). Accordingly, since the appellant did not object to the admissi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)
- Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1982)
- State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1974)
- Johnson v. State, 178 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Jones v. Moss, 333 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Glenwood Perry and James Rushin, Jr. v. State, 356 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)